On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>
>> I think I would find this confusing. There are already a set of
>> logger.trace, logger.debug, etc methods that take arguments. Having a set
>> of trace, debug, etc methods that do
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
> I think I would find this confusing. There are already a set of
> logger.trace, logger.debug, etc methods that take arguments. Having a set
> of trace, debug, etc methods that don’t have args but accept a log method
> would mean that people
I think I would find this confusing. There are already a set of logger.trace,
logger.debug, etc methods that take arguments. Having a set of trace, debug,
etc methods that don’t have args but accept a log method would mean that people
might code logger.trace(“This {} and that{}”, this, that);
Hi All:
I've thinking about adding 1, 2 and 3 arg variants to the Object... methods
in Logger to avoid paying the cost of creating Object arrays. This is
especially important when no logging takes place and I have a call like
logger.trace("this {} and that {}", this, that);
logger.debug("this {}
